About your Search

20130318
20130326
STATION
MSNBCW 8
CSPAN 4
CNNW 3
KQED (PBS) 3
KQEH (PBS) 2
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 26
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)
to doma. this was john lewis, 1996, talking about the civil right, the right of a human being to marry another. their there has been a long struggle for civil right for gay and lesbian people. and there were people early on who recognized this was a fundamental civil rights issue. the reason people are coming to that view is because of people coming out in their countries and whether it is john roberts or other people in the country realizing that they are brothers and sisters and cousins of people who are gay and lesbian. and it is inevitable. watching ralph reed with the most ridiculous argument i've ever heard of the many ridiculous arguments against gay marriage. he's arguing the only reason people get player sid to have children. people get married because they want to be in a loving, committed relationship with each other. there is no reason that fundamental right should be denied. >> to steve's point, ralph reed was not discussing the lawful he is talking about religion and emotional reaction to marriage and the sanctity of it. i want to play this. he was on "meet the press." >>
. >>> 48 years ago this month, the nation reached a turning point in the civil rights movement. the third and decisive civil rights march from selma to birmingham, alabama. >> kill, burn, bomb destroy. people go into selma is a whole different game. >> reporter: harry bellefonte remembers the backdrop, the selma to montgomery marches in 1965. 50 miles had to be covered, but the real obstacle was hate. not long after 600 marchers began on sunday, march 7th, police brutally beat them, driving them back to selma. >> when bloody sunday happened and then dr. king decided to march again after it. what was the mood? >> the mood was anger. the mood was rebellious. the question is, what do we do in the face of this kind of rage and mayhem. the bottom line is we will go back as often as necessary. >> reporter: bring artists into the movement convince the likes of joe biaz and marlin brando but one of his first calls was to old friend and supporter tony bennett. >> i didn't want to do it, but then he told me what went down, what was going down and how some blacks were burned with gasoline thrown on
already had a conservative back lash building against the court from griswold and from civil rights and from miranda even. so it wasn't just this one decision that created that sort of back lash. and the other reason i don't think the parallel holds here is because people who believe, who are pro-life. who are staunchly pro-life, believe that abortion is tantamount to murder. no one thinks that gay marriage is like murder. so i don't think the emotions here run quite as high either. it is hard to imagine people really taking to the streets if doma were to be overturn at this time. >> yeah. and the other part of that is that while the emotions come from the grassroots, there has been a real shift among the political leadership in this country. when you look from president obama to president clinton to hillary clinton to rob portman to dick cheney, cleric mccaskill, jon huntsman. there are a tremendous number of federal officials, highly visible people in both parties. not only saying people should have this right, which is the moral position, but also saying something that i think cr
like this. it's a civil rights case, it seems like that would be the legacy that they want. but more curious things have happened in this court. let's go to doma for a second. >> the importance of doma says the federal government cannot deny federal benefits to people just because they are involved in a same-sex marriage. every single issue we are concerned about, whether it's lbgt worker's women boment baum care, all of those issues will be played out in the context of the immigration bill. in my point there is no point of bringing people out of the shadows only to make them second class citizens. it's all of us liberty and justice for all that has to happen. >> michael: yeah "politico" has an article out saying that there are these republican -- big doers in the republican party, that are going to give a lot more money if republicans start taking a stand that says -- that legalizes gay marriage in america. how big of factor is this, and do you believe it? >> i absolutely think there are gay republicans, some of them are my friends, that say it's tough for me.
that promise for everybody, the cause of his life. as a civil rights attorney, an aide to senator ted kennedy, a member of the montgomery, maryland county council, tom fought for a level playing field, where hard work and responsibility are rewarded and working families can get ahead. and this is not the first time that he's chosen to be a labor secretary, either. we've got here today governor martin o'malley, and martin appointed tom as secretary of maryland's department of labor where he helped implement the country's first statewide living wage law. because he understood that a minimum wage should be a wage that you can live on. in his current role as the head of the u.s. justice department's civil rights division, he fought to open pathways to the work fos for everybody willing to contribute, and he's helped settle some of the largest cases ever on behalf of families targeted by unfair mortgage lending. now while he's tackled plenty of tough issues, tom has also spent a career as a consensus builder. he's worked with ceos, he's worked with labor leaders, he's worked at federal, state and
.org/possibilities. >>> tomorrow, the supreme court will begin hearing arguments in two of the biggest civil rights cases to reach its docket in years, if not in decades. up for consideration, doma, the so-called defense of marriage act, and california's proposition 8. as the court prepares for an historic moment, more public figures are weighing in. we can now add senator claire mccaskill of missouri and senator mark warner of virginia to the growing number of current and former lawmakers throwing their support behind marriage equality. senator mccaskill wrote, "i have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love. while churches should never be required to conduct marriages outside of their religious beliefs, neither should the government tell people who they have a right to marry." senator mark warner announced his support for marriage equality in a facebook post. "i support marriage equality because it is the fair and right thing to do." one of the two lawyers arguing against california's prop 8, david boyce, has predicted vark victory. >> i think we're g
in which you don't have to have a majority position. civil rights not put up for a vote. right. that's right. >> frequently. >> frequently although now what has happened is that this sea change meant they can be successfully put up for a vote. how -- but the third part of it is this interpersonal thing. dan, you said this thing the last time you were on the show, you said the superpower lgbt people have, inherently mixed among the population. >> we are born into the families of the, you know, oppressor class. for lack of any better term. gay people are born to straight parents. the most dash single most for political act of any lgbt person can take is to be out to family and friends. we saw in ohio with senator portman the difference that can make. it can open someone's eyes. republican failure of empathy. senator portman wasn't for marriage when other people's children were allowed to marry, other people's children were gay. now that he has gay child, he sees the justice in gay marriage. we will take the support however we can get it. it shouldn't take people's kids come out but oft
this equal protection idea. they were about race. >> scott: since the civil war. >> right. the historical case. there are parallels between these kinds of discrimination. here is another difference. in 1967 when the supreme court in loving versus virginia banned gay marriage, in that time, only 16 states retained such a ban. the previous decade plus, 14 states moved away from the bans. we still have a situation where 40 states prohibit same-sex marriage. that may change in four or five years. that is different with the mainstream. >> i would say one of the things that is interesting is how fast public opinion is moving. in the case of interracial marriage in 1967, there were polls showing lower levels of support when the supreme court acted than there are today. there is the fact that many states and one reason is a big regional divide. on the east coast and west coast, there is more sympathy than in the south and middle of the country. >> scott: that goes if they strike down prop 8, they have several options if they strike it down. more or less it is california only option or -- >> there
from imprisoned felons. this is a basic civil rights issue and i don't think it's the issue that divides the court. >> joining me now, patricia and head of the supreme court practice. jonathan turley. hello to both of you. welcome. >> hi, alex. >> patricia, i'll begin with you as -- well, let's talk about in terms of prop 8, what we heard just there, correct, i mean, the right to mary already, has it been well-established? >> well, the right to marry is but what the court hasn't grappled with is what is the definition of marriage and that, as we know, is the issue hotly contested in this case and what they will be confronting and in particular what is the role of the courts in that, the role of the states, the role of the federal constitution. so there's much for them to grapple with still. >> jonathan, breakdown for the viewers, if you will, the key issues here for each case. name one key issue for each of them. >> well, first of all, on the threshold level, one is doma, the statute of the defense of marriage act that has formed a discrimination against those who have same-
as a civil rights issue as gay marriage or gay rights in general, i would hope our elected officials have open mindedness about the ability to conceive it differently down the road if it effects them personally. >> you're not going to get any admission of that sort from john boehner. his job there i guess was to give that particular answer, his party would be horrified if he said anything -- >> i mean, we're just about to have the supreme court case, doma, prop 8, we know where he is in support of doma, it would be difficult. >> if you're a republican operative at this juncture, you can't deny the math. you look at this, say the new poll, 81% under 30 support gay marriage. 40% of seniors. eventually will be well called the majority. maybe it is time to get ahead of the curve. >> thank you both for joining me tonight. >>> coming up, the surprising agreement between john boehner and president obama. they finally agree on something and it is no small thing. it is a really huge thing. the debt. in the "rewrite," i am going to show you jokes that sarah palin told at cpac, not because they're s
, but marriage is not a religious her right. it is a civil right that is provided by the government. a church does not cover right to marry someone, except that it is given the right by the government. the government issues marriage license. the government decides who gets married and who does not. in 1967 there was a supreme court case, loving nurses virginia and blacks could not marry whites. they challenged that. the supreme court ruled 9-0. they have rolled 14 times about the fundamental rights of marriage. from a legal standpoint, there is no argument. you can make a moral standpoint if you want, but from a legal standpoint, there is no argument we feel confident. how broadly the supreme court will roll, that we do not know. >> go to c-span.org to see the rest of that discussion. live in half an hour we will have more on this issue. we will bring you a preview of the same-6 marriage cases coming before the high court tomorrow. legal experts -- legal experts will examine the case. that will be live here on c-span starting at 4:00 eastern. president obama today called on congress to begin
partnership regime and how foreign is equivalent to civil regimes elsewhere. it is in all the rights to domestic partners. it does not give the name. we said earlier that it cannot call themselves married. they can call themselves whenever they want. >> not if they apply for a passport. >> of their married the cannot do that. >> it is a federal crime. merit on a federaler o form? -- married on a federal form? sides agree both that the word marriage matters. the gays and lesbians as a degradation of some sort of recognition. those of us supporting to a traditional marriage see the word marriage draws on its that is tiedole to procreation and child rearing. we want men and women to understand that marriage is the ideal context in which to raise children, and in a sense to read the fine marriage in a way that eliminates the essential components. >> you have a bunch of people out there raising children right now cannot get married. if you think marriage is an important thing to happen your parents, if you think they would benefit from having unmarried parents. hawthorne and they have all
case this is week. some call the push for same-sex marriage the civil rights issue of our time. they say the tide has turned and that it's time for a change. even karl rove thinks, yes, a republican candidate could embrace same-sex marriage. >> you can imagine the next presidential campaign, a republican candidate saying flat out i'm for gay marriage? >> i could. >> and that's all karl rove would say. i'm joined by san francisco city town dennis herrera and austin nimox. good morning to you both. >> good morning. >> thank you for having us. >> austin, you heard what karl rove just said. are you on the wrong side of history? >> the only side of history with regard to marriage is the right one regarding the truth. and that really should be decided by the american people. americans have an inevitable and inalienable right to determine our own history and that's really a fundamental aspect of america. we have a massive political debate going on in this country about marriage. and the last thing we need is the supreme court to take this debate away from the american people, print a
of bondage to reach for liberty and human dignity -- a tale that was carried from slavery through the civil rights movement into today. for generations, this promise helped people weather poverty and persecution, while holding on to the hope that a better day was on the horizon. for me, personally, growing up in far-flung parts of the world and without firm roots, the story spoke to a yearning within every human being for a home. [applause] of course, even as we draw strength from the story of god's will and his gift of freedom expressed on passover, we also know that here on earth we must bear our responsibilities in an imperfect world. that means accepting our measure of sacrifice and struggle, just like previous generations. it means us working through generation after generation on behalf of that ideal of freedom. as dr. martin luther king said on the day before he was killed, "i may not get there with you. but i want you to know that we, as a people, will get to the promised land." (applause.) so just as joshua carried on after moses, the work goes on for all of you, the joshua generat
, you know. this right wing civil war and it's being waged quietly now because there's not a ton at stake in terms of elections but my gosh. ten years ago if you had thought a republican -- and republican leaders are basically urging politicians to embrace gay marriage, you know, the opposition which has been a cornerstone in the previous decade. suddenly embrace immigration reform and things like that. so you know, i don't think it is being done out of goodwill, honestly. i think is being done out of flip flopping and watching the polls. this is where the tension comes from, ralph reed talking about evangelicals will sit out. if they "embrace" gay marriage and the republican party and things like that. >> stephanie: same with immigration reform, right? they're basically saying we lost on that issue. >> sean hannity 24 hours after the election, he was like oh, forget it. ignore everything i've said for the last seven years. on the one hand, folks on the left can appreciate that they see it is a loser issue and if fox news throws in the towel on immigration hate, if they do, you k
down on the midwest right now and headed east. heavy snow and strong winds are creating dangerous conditions. where the system is heading next. damplts pope francis led his first palm sunday service as cardinal. he reportedly supported civil unions. will he bring that style of leadership to the papacy? this as the u.s. supreme court considers same-sex marriage cases. >>> and believe it or not, there's a relatively simple explanation for a car that wound up on the roof of this house in glen dale, california. the good news -- no one was hurt. >>> first the severe weather hitting the midwest. a huge spring snowstorm is bounding the region from missouri to ohio. susan candiotti is in dayton where the snow is falling and it is not expected to stop any time soon. susan? >> reporter: hi, fred. we're kind of between a bit of a wet snow and flurries right now. things have subsided just a bit. temperatures, fred, right now are just above freezing. that's why you can still see grass on the ground. you don't see any accumulation on the pavement so far. you see over my shoulder, that's i-75. t
right it seems to me to marry. if you want to say they have the 8 state solution where you say these are states that say you you can have civil marriage but can't have marriage per se. can't have a gay marriage. if that is the case why are you stigmatizing marriage in that situation. in the california case a matter of revoking something that has already been granted right to marriage. in both situations it seems you a constitutional right. a human being. an american citizen. you should have equal rights coast-to-coast. you ask the critical question what the rest of the panel is talking about this morning. the politics of it are that if the court rules everybody will be angry at the court and say that supreme court they are an elite and trying to tell us what to do justice kennedy who senator bayh is likely the swing vote. you can't have nine unelected people narrowly focused on the law making big decisions for the country. if that is the way they feel they will make a political decision and say it is up to the the states let them do what they want. con is not a matter of the ci
would oppose a striking down of a right to same sex marriage, you want to leave it in the state legislature? >> look, i would prefer every state in the union keep the definition of marriage that prevailed in western civilization for a couple thousand years. that doesn't look like that is going to happen. so, i certainly at this point would prefer the people of the states to make the decision, as they -- and by the way, chris, it is worth mentioning that the briefs that nicole is supporting, which supports the judge, the prop 8 judge, somebody ought to read his decision, his animus, his hostility to people of faith, was disgusting. >> chris: all right, he's not here to defend himself, but, people can read it if they want and the other case, the court will hear and there are two big cases involves the defense of marriage act. >> right. >> chris: which president clinton signed in 1996. which bans federal marital benefits for same sex couples who are legally married in their states. you have acknowledged states have the right to declare, to decide that same sex marriage is legal. as
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)